Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death. It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead. Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them. Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something. Please read it again.

My objection is slightly different from Ionnis's. It seems to me that 2 Macc 12: 39-46 is in keeping with the RC understanding of Purgatory. Can you show that it isn't?

OK - in RC-speak...

The soldiers had died in mortal sin. Idolatry.

People who die in mortal sin go to hell.

Modern Catholicism teaches there is no liberation from hell.

Could you also put it in AngloCatholic-speak for me? Just wondering.

I see now that the real issue here is with the distinction between "mortal sin" and "grave matter". Idolatry is grave matter, or course, but we can't say with certainty that the soldiers committed mortal sin (you know, the "full knowledge" and "full consent" criteria).

I realize that we've argued about this before, and we're probably not going to resolve our disagreements on it.

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death. It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead. Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them. Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something. Please read it again.

My objection is slightly different from Ionnis's. It seems to me that 2 Macc 12: 39-46 is in keeping with the RC understanding of Purgatory. Can you show that it isn't?

OK - in RC-speak...

The soldiers had died in mortal sin. Idolatry.

People who die in mortal sin go to hell.

Modern Catholicism teaches there is no liberation from hell.

Could you also put it in AngloCatholic-speak for me? Just wondering.

I see now that the real issue here is with the distinction between "mortal sin" and "grave matter". Idolatry is grave matter, or course, but we can't say with certainty that the soldiers committed mortal sin (you know, the "full knowledge" and "full consent" criteria).

I realize that we've argued about this before, and we're probably not going to resolve our disagreements on it.

Well, the inspired Scriptures inform us that Judas Maccabeus sent a truckload of silver off to the Jerusalem temple as a sin offering for his idolatrous soldiers.

Scripture also says that it was on account of their idolatry that God had them slain in battle.

Both would seem to indicate that neither Judas Maccabeus nor God saw this idolatry as a venial sin.

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death. It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead. Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them. Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something. Please read it again.

My objection is slightly different from Ionnis's. It seems to me that 2 Macc 12: 39-46 is in keeping with the RC understanding of Purgatory. Can you show that it isn't?

OK - in RC-speak...

The soldiers had died in mortal sin. Idolatry.

People who die in mortal sin go to hell.

Modern Catholicism teaches there is no liberation from hell.

Could you also put it in AngloCatholic-speak for me? Just wondering.

I see now that the real issue here is with the distinction between "mortal sin" and "grave matter". Idolatry is grave matter, or course, but we can't say with certainty that the soldiers committed mortal sin (you know, the "full knowledge" and "full consent" criteria).

I realize that we've argued about this before, and we're probably not going to resolve our disagreements on it.

The whole development of mortal/venial distinctions was late and is not a part of Orthodox dogma (or early patristic theology of the United Church / before the Great Schism). Fr. Allyne Smith points out "While the Roman Catholic tradition has identified particular acts as 'mortal' sins, in the Orthodox tradition we see that only a sin for which we do not repent is 'mortal" (Fr. Allyne Smith, in G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Bishop Kallistos Ware, trs., Philokalia: The Eastern Christian Spiritual Texts (Skylight Press, 2000), p. 2).[1]

This understanding is also described in the OCA website's article "Sin":

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins. A "venial" sin, according to this line of thinking, did not jeopardize one's salvation. While stealing a car might be considered a "mortal" sin, stealing a candy bar was not. While a "venial" sin did not jeopardize one's salvation, it still needed to be confessed and still may have had time in purgatory attached to it. Another way to see this distinction in Roman Catholic teaching -- and here I simplify a tremendously complex line of reasoning -- is as follows: If one commits a mortal sin and dies before confessing it, one would go straight to hell. If one commits a venial sin and dies before confessing it, one would not go straight to hell, but would have to spend time in purgatory before entering heaven. [note the Orthodox Church does not affirm the late Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory] These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church. Sin is sin. Concerning Confession, having a list of deadly sins could, in fact, become an obstacle to genuine repentance. For example, imagine that you commit a sin. You look on the list and do not find it listed. It would be very easy to take the attitude that, since it is not on a list of deadly sins, it is not too serious. Hence, you do not feel the need to seek God's forgiveness right away. A week passes and you have completely forgotten about what you had done. You never sought God's forgiveness; as a result, you did not receive it, either. We should go to Confession when we sin -- at the very least, we should ask God to forgive us daily in our personal prayers. We should not see Confession as a time to confess only those sins which may be found on a list."[2]

Sometimes we hear a caveat from some Roman Catholics that there is a "confession of desire" in Roman Catholic teaching similar to a "baptism of desire"; that is completely untrue according Catholic Answers apologist Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.[4] ________________

[1] Fr. Allyne is commenting on this saying of Mark the Ascetic: "There is a sin that is always 'unto death': the sin for which we do not repent. For this sin even a saint's prayers will not be heard" (Philokalia, op cit). Mark the Ascetic is citing 1 John 5:16 from which all subsequent discussions of mortal sin have their origin. The Greek text of St. John's first epistle at 5:16, it should be underscored, says there is a SINGLE SIN leading to death (ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον)[3] -not sins leading to death or a class of sins leading to death. As Fr. Allyne points out that sin/singular in Orthodox tradition is refusal to repent.

[4]"Re: Is there Confession of desire? [in Roman Catholic teaching] No—if one is in the state of mortal sin, one must receive the sacrament of Penance (Confession) before receiving the Eucharist. If you have committed a mortal sin, then catch the priest before Mass or even after Mass or phone him ask and for an appointment. He OWES you the opportunity for you to confess your sins. He was ordained for this! St. John Vianney used to hear Confessions all day long. To receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin is like dropping the Eucharist in a sewer—only worse! And to do so is to commit another mortal sin. You don’t want to do that. The best way to avoid committing a mortal sin is to spend frequent time before the Blessed Sacrament and to reflect daily on all the sufferings Jesus endured and to thank Him. It is only by having an intimate relationship with Him, that we can ever hope to be strong enough to remain free of serious sin." Catholic Anwers apologist Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=244959

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

Regarding Fr. Vincent Serpa, here's how it went:

Quote

Subject: Is there Confession of desire?

My Question is that if a person has committed a mortal sin but, not by his own fault, can't get to confession and has a real desire to get to confession still receive the Eucharist? One example of this is if your priests are only in the confessional once a week and this week they have a retreat to go on and then after that they are going to an ordination. Because of this, there are not having confession this week. Could someone still receive if this happens?

Thanks,Nathan

------------------------------------------------------

Hi Nathan,

No—if one is in the state of mortal sin, one must receive the sacrament of Penance (Confession) before receiving the Eucharist. If you have committed a mortal sin, then catch the priest before Mass or even after Mass or phone him ask and for an appointment. He OWES you the opportunity for you to confess your sins. He was ordained for this! St. John Vianney used to hear Confessions all day long.

To receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin is like dropping the Eucharist in a sewer—only worse! And to do so is to commit another mortal sin. You don’t want to do that. The best way to avoid committing a mortal sin is to spend frequent time before the Blessed Sacrament and to reflect daily on all the sufferings Jesus endured and to thank Him. It is only by having an intimate relationship with Him, that we can ever hope to be strong enough to remain free of serious sin.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

That's not mine to change as it's from OCA, however you are quite right to point out the distinction and I appreciate the clarification. The OCA article made reference to a pre-Vatican II Catechism. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

Sloth (to take one of the examples given in the OCA quote), is one of the seven so-called deadly or capital sins in Roman Catholicism, however whether it is mortal or not depends upon whether one is doing it with full will and with full knowledge that it is a sin.

So such things "can" be mortal sins as they are grave matters, but they must be accompanied by the additional criteria of full knowledge and deliberate consent. To a catechized and cognizant Roman Catholic grave matters would constitute mortal sins, but the distinction is important

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations.

So you are saying that the new official teaching is the distinction of lesser faults and serious faults? When was that promulgated?

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

That's not mine to change as it's from OCA, however you are quite right to point out the distinction and I appreciate the clarification. The OCA article made reference to a pre-Vatican II Catechism. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

Sloth (to take one of the examples given in the OCA quote), is one of the seven so-called deadly or capital sins in Roman Catholicism, however whether it is mortal or not depends upon whether one is doing it with full will and with full knowledge that it is a sin.

So such things "can" be mortal sins as they are grave matters, but they must be accompanied by the additional criteria of full knowledge and deliberate consent. To a catechized and cognizant Roman Catholic grave matters would constitute mortal sins, but the distinction is important

Thanks again, PeterJ, for the clarification.

It is not really as straightforward as "full consent" and "full knowledge."

"Imputability

"That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. "

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations.

So you are saying that the new official teaching is the distinction of lesser faults and serious faults? When was that promulgated?

Actually, what I meant is that when you say "When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin." RCs can respond with That-was-never-the-official-teaching.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations.

So you are saying that the new official teaching is the distinction of lesser faults and serious faults? When was that promulgated?

Actually, what I meant is that when you say "When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin." RCs can respond with That-was-never-the-official-teaching.

No, of course it wasn't. Up until Vatican II the bishops and priests and the nuns were all a bunch if liars who perpetrated this fraud on the gullible Catholic faithful, telling them that the missing Masss on Sundays was a mortal sin which led to the gnawing worms and the fires..

But so quickly has faded the glory of the Catholic Church - remember the days before Vatican II when 96% of Irish Catholics were at Mass on Sunday?

The Baltimore Catechism...

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.....

Now if the Catholic bishops and priests were lying to the Catholic faithful about this, for so many centuries, terrifying both children and grown ups... then what gives you any confidence they are not lying about things today? Are they any more moral these days?

You know, I tried to convert to Orthodoxy a couple times before, and I would have been Orthodox years ago. And then something like this always crops up. Beyond unbelievable.

I just wrote a letter to my priest the other day, asking if I could ever be accepted by Chrismation. Congratulations, you just made me regret it.

I haven't read every post on this thread, and not being a glutton for punishment I'm not about to go back and do so now, so if you've stated this clearly already, I apologize--but could you explain what about this thread you are finding so upsetting? Since it seems to somehow affect your own decisions about conversion, I'm presuming the objection goes beyond a stylistic problem with massive subject detours.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

You know, I tried to convert to Orthodoxy a couple times before, and I would have been Orthodox years ago. And then something like this always crops up. Beyond unbelievable.

I just wrote a letter to my priest the other day, asking if I could ever be accepted by Chrismation. Congratulations, you just made me regret it.

I recent wrote a little about my own journey. You may have seen it here (or possibly you didn't but noticed the adjective "High Church" in my profile), but in any case I won't go into it here. Let me just say that I sympathize.

Biro, you say you have wanted to convert several times before but each time something or someone in Orthodoxy has put you off. This time it is me and my experience with pre-Vatican II Catholicism. I cannot apologise for the truth of my upbringing and experience in the Catholic Church --- but it is sad that my Catholic experiences put you off Orthodoxy. Sorry.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations.

So you are saying that the new official teaching is the distinction of lesser faults and serious faults? When was that promulgated?

Actually, what I meant is that when you say "When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin." RCs can respond with That-was-never-the-official-teaching.

No, of course it wasn't. Up until Vatican II the bishops and priests and the nuns were all a bunch if liars who perpetrated this fraud on the gullible Catholic faithful, telling them that the missing Masss on Sundays was a mortal sin which led to the gnawing worms and the fires..

But so quickly has faded the glory of the Catholic Church - remember the days before Vatican II when 96% of Irish Catholics were at Mass on Sunday?

The Baltimore Catechism...

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.....

Now if the Catholic bishops and priests were lying to the Catholic faithful about this, for so many centuries, terrifying both children and grown ups... then what gives you any confidence they are not lying about things today? Are they any more moral these days?

Thanks for the quote from the Baltimore Catechism. I never saw that quote before. (I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the Baltimore Catechism.)

Am I scandalized? Yes, but not as much as you might think, for the following reason: as recently as 3 or 4 years ago, in the course of my participation on the Catholic Answers Forum, I encountered a number of different statements -- from Catholics mind you -- along the lines of "The pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals". The scandal is, these statements were routinely passed over, quite nonchalantly, by the other posters; and even if I explicitly pointed out the error and cited the real Catholic teaching, I rarely got responses that weren't to the tune of "Okay, fine. What's your point?" (On a few of these occasions, I actually came under attack. Although, on the other hand, I do recall one occasion where the person who had said "The pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals" actually apologized for his mistake after I pointed it out.)

Now, after writing that, I feel like I need a shower to wash off any of that forum that's still sticking to me. Anyways, the point is that there was probably a point in my life when I would have been extremely scandalized by that quote from the Baltimore Catechism. I guess I've been desensitized.

There isn't really any "greatest difference between Catholics and Orthodox" because the Catholics can just say that the Orthodox position is a valid expression that means the same thing from through an eastern lens (no matter how contradictory) and use the Orthodox version of a doctrine when convenient. That's what my religion teacher does with Hell.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday. As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things. Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching! What misery and grief it inflicted. Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday. As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things. Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching! What misery and grief it inflicted. Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell. The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell. Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

Unbelievable! It seems that eating meat on Friday is coming back as a mortal sin!

"Friday Abstinence and Mortal Sin

"On May 14th [2011] the Bishops of England and Wales announced that they are re-establishing the requirement to abstain from meat on Fridays, effective 16th September 2011. As indicated below, this means that it is now a sin, and sometimes even a mortal sin, to eat meat on Fridays. As our own Bishop Christopher Budd has explained in his Ad clerum of July 2011, this is now a matter of “precept”, i.e. a legally established moral obligation."

Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday. As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things. Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching! What misery and grief it inflicted. Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell. The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell. Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

To remember this stuff, I'd venture that one would have to at least be in his or her sixties, no? Father, you might very well be the only one involved in this thread who is blessed with the precise mixture of (what I assume to be Irish Catholic) religious background and age to be able to remember such things.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday. As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things. Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching! What misery and grief it inflicted. Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell. The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell. Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

To remember this stuff, I'd venture that one would have to at least be in his or her sixties, no? Father, you might very well be the only one involved in this thread who is blessed with the precise mixture of (what I assume to be Irish Catholic) religious background and age to be able to remember such things.

It looks like it is returning to England and Wales and so soon the youngsters there may have a taste of the experience of us oldies. Although I suspect that they will laugh at the notion whereas we took it deadly seriously.

Interesting that the English and the Welsh now have an opportunity to commit a mortal sin which is not available to the rest of the world.

Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday. As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things. Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching! What misery and grief it inflicted. Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell. The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell. Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

To remember this stuff, I'd venture that one would have to at least be in his or her sixties, no? Father, you might very well be the only one involved in this thread who is blessed with the precise mixture of (what I assume to be Irish Catholic) religious background and age to be able to remember such things.

It looks like it is returning to England and Wales and so soon the youngsters there may have a taste of the experience of us oldies. Although I suspect that they will laugh at the notion whereas we took it deadly seriously.

Interesting that the English and the Welsh now have an opportunity to commit a mortal sin which is not available to the rest of the world.

But Father, do we know if the new fasting regulation is to be implemented under pain of mortal sin or if it will be a recommendation? Without that information, I'm not sure if we can reach that conclusion (please take no offense from my cautiousness here, I just don't want for a logical conclusion to be drawn here without all the information which is necessary to reach it).

« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 01:25:29 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father, you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism. My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin. You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism. He's 92 and going strong. There has to be a connexion.

Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday. As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things. Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching! What misery and grief it inflicted. Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell. The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell. Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

To remember this stuff, I'd venture that one would have to at least be in his or her sixties, no? Father, you might very well be the only one involved in this thread who is blessed with the precise mixture of (what I assume to be Irish Catholic) religious background and age to be able to remember such things.

It looks like it is returning to England and Wales and so soon the youngsters there may have a taste of the experience of us oldies. Although I suspect that they will laugh at the notion whereas we took it deadly seriously.

Interesting that the English and the Welsh now have an opportunity to commit a mortal sin which is not available to the rest of the world.

But Father, do we know if the new fasting regulation is to be implemented under pain of mortal sin or if it will be a recommendation?

The ramifications for the new legal precept vis-a-vis mortal sin is discussed in the article linked in message 74.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father, you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism. My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin. You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism. He's 92 and going strong. There has to be a connexion.

Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism. Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father, you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism. My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin. You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism. He's 92 and going strong. There has to be a connexion.

Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism. Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Minus eating meat on Fridays nothing has changed in my Irish family's thinking. although I was Greek Catholic I did have to attend Roman Catholic Churches b/c there wasn't always a Greek Catholic church available. I am well versed in what you speak of. American Catholicism has become more protestant and free in thinking while my family is still follows what you wrote. However I have never met a married RC couple my age or slightly older than I that doesn't use artificial birth control and none practice the mandated birth control called natural family planning. The most "to the tee" Roman Catholics I have met were Polish Immigrants. And by that I mean mass more than once a week, rosaries recited at home with the family, prayers with the family, fasting in lent, etc.....

A side note to make you chuckle Padre Ambrose...Christmas 2010 we went to high mass near here. The benedictine monk revamped the church. no new altar table. A glorious high altar. Wood floors with parquee in it. The schola cantorum is from Our Lady of Victory in State College (Joe Paterno was a strong member there).They sing like angels. The priest sings like an angel. He follows the 1962 with no confiteor before communion. The people that go to his 1962 masses are nice.When he said "Pax Domine sit semper vobiscum" and the choir said "et cum spirit tu tuo"I turned around and did the handshake and said "peace be with you." Why not, no one was shocked.His low masses the people say the responses. If you miss one class for first communion he makes you wait until next year to start classes over.He is "old school." He's from St. Vincent Arch-abbey near Pittsburgh. The latin mass community in Pittsburgh PA makes you feel like you stepped back to my mother's generation.Every family comes dressed to the nines. They all have multiple children. The priest is nice but he has that respect that priests used to get in the Catholic church. Both latin mass communities I speak of the homilies the priests give would shock the catholic used to the new ways. They lay the message out there and do not hold back. They don't give the "my aunt used to" story to connect it weakly to the readings. No, they talk about hell. They talk about what you must do as a Catholic to be a Catholic. A lot of Catholics I know and Catholics make up most of the Christians in my area pick and choose what they want to incorporate into their faith but still claim to be Roman Catholic.They don't realise that by not;going to confession once a year means they aren't catholic and can not take communion until a confession is made.They don't care about not being allowed to use birth controlThey believe in divorce and even if no annulment was processed they still take communion.The let girls serve on the altar and many would like to see women priestsThey don't observe the holy days and the little customs around itThey say you can talk to God and you don't have to go to the priest for advice or guidance.The priests in most parishes don't even teach the first communion classes or confirmation classes or baptism classes or have any part in RCIA.They don't think missing mass is a mortal sinThe ones that care about the one hour fast I know people who will go out to eat before mass and time it so the time they are done eating until communion is handed out is an hour.They co-habitate before marriage,sometimes for years and still think they are catholics in good standingI mean, the Catholic Church still has strict rules if you read them. But most people justify their actions when ignoring the rules. Sure that happens in the orthodox church too so I'm not casting stones.The problem is most of them were raised in CCCD (sunday school) through confirmation (7th grade here) by lay people who don't have much of a clue as to what the Catholic Church really teaches. The priests sugar-coat the rules from the pulpit and don't hold their flock accountable to the teachings of the church. They don't remind the people that you are truly excommunicated and prohibited from communion and other sacraments if you are not participating in the church's laws.

In fact the difference between the crowds at the local latin mass communities and the culture and the mass itself and the way the sacraments are carried out VERSUS the new way of catholicism clearly shows even the most lax catholic that the current Roman Catholic Church is clearly not even the same Church as it was up until 1965.

Go to new mass and then go to a couple sung low masses. Talk lightly with the people. Watch confirmation or a baptism in the 1962 Roman Missal way. The families are strong, the kids are polite and nice (and there are ALOT of them) and many of them know the latin and most of the boys take turns serving. They realize that the church has rules you must follow.

I must say from what I have seen no wonder so many Catholics leave or have left. You go from the priest being astute in his teachings and a culture of church and family being connected to a free-for-all mass that is just an empty shell of 1960's social revolution of "free will." So you get horrendous services with incredibly weak language, liturgical dancers, lay folk performing the abultions of the holy vessels post-communion. It's a three ring circus now. The problem is the Catholic Church made it easy to separate church from home and make only church church on Sundays. The latin mass folks still go to novenas, pray the rosary before (and sometimes during low mass privately), they still go to benediction, they still go to continuing adult education classes held by the priest. The priest oversees and teaches the first communion kids and confrimation kids. He knows everyone that goes... We really lost God in our society after the peak of free-will american individualism in the 50's through the 70's and it continues today.And that is one thing I fear about Orthodoxy.. that the customs and small traditions that make the various jursidictions uniqe. But so many coming into the church and those evangelical and protestants converts and nothing solid to have the Catholic faithful confident in their church. I fMore to come, i'm going to bed

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father, you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism. My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin. You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism. He's 92 and going strong. There has to be a connexion.

Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism. Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Slightly off topic and on the more humorous and lighter side of things, I can't help but notice that you have mentioned "plotting to kill grannie" several times in this thread. Was this a particularly common sin back in pre-Vatican II times? Grannies must have been much richer or much more annoying in times past.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

It looks like it is returning to England and Wales and so soon the youngsters there may have a taste of the experience of us oldies. Although I suspect that they will laugh at the notion whereas we took it deadly seriously.

Interesting that the English and the Welsh now have an opportunity to commit a mortal sin which is not available to the rest of the world.

Excepting that during lent the rest of them have that same "opportunity to commit a mortal sin".

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father, you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism. My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin. You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism. He's 92 and going strong. There has to be a connexion.

Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism. Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Minus eating meat on Fridays nothing has changed in my Irish family's thinking. although I was Greek Catholic I did have to attend Roman Catholic Churches b/c there wasn't always a Greek Catholic church available. I am well versed in what you speak of. American Catholicism has become more protestant and free in thinking while my family is still follows what you wrote. However I have never met a married RC couple my age or slightly older than I that doesn't use artificial birth control and none practice the mandated birth control called natural family planning. The most "to the tee" Roman Catholics I have met were Polish Immigrants. And by that I mean mass more than once a week, rosaries recited at home with the family, prayers with the family, fasting in lent, etc.....

A side note to make you chuckle Padre Ambrose...Christmas 2010 we went to high mass near here. The benedictine monk revamped the church. no new altar table. A glorious high altar. Wood floors with parquee in it. The schola cantorum is from Our Lady of Victory in State College (Joe Paterno was a strong member there).They sing like angels. The priest sings like an angel. He follows the 1962 with no confiteor before communion. The people that go to his 1962 masses are nice.When he said "Pax Domine sit semper vobiscum" and the choir said "et cum spirit tu tuo"I turned around and did the handshake and said "peace be with you." Why not, no one was shocked.His low masses the people say the responses. If you miss one class for first communion he makes you wait until next year to start classes over.He is "old school." He's from St. Vincent Arch-abbey near Pittsburgh. The latin mass community in Pittsburgh PA makes you feel like you stepped back to my mother's generation.Every family comes dressed to the nines. They all have multiple children. The priest is nice but he has that respect that priests used to get in the Catholic church. Both latin mass communities I speak of the homilies the priests give would shock the catholic used to the new ways. They lay the message out there and do not hold back. They don't give the "my aunt used to" story to connect it weakly to the readings. No, they talk about hell. They talk about what you must do as a Catholic to be a Catholic. A lot of Catholics I know and Catholics make up most of the Christians in my area pick and choose what they want to incorporate into their faith but still claim to be Roman Catholic.They don't realise that by not;going to confession once a year means they aren't catholic and can not take communion until a confession is made.They don't care about not being allowed to use birth controlThey believe in divorce and even if no annulment was processed they still take communion.The let girls serve on the altar and many would like to see women priestsThey don't observe the holy days and the little customs around itThey say you can talk to God and you don't have to go to the priest for advice or guidance.The priests in most parishes don't even teach the first communion classes or confirmation classes or baptism classes or have any part in RCIA.They don't think missing mass is a mortal sinThe ones that care about the one hour fast I know people who will go out to eat before mass and time it so the time they are done eating until communion is handed out is an hour.They co-habitate before marriage,sometimes for years and still think they are catholics in good standingI mean, the Catholic Church still has strict rules if you read them. But most people justify their actions when ignoring the rules. Sure that happens in the orthodox church too so I'm not casting stones.The problem is most of them were raised in CCCD (sunday school) through confirmation (7th grade here) by lay people who don't have much of a clue as to what the Catholic Church really teaches. The priests sugar-coat the rules from the pulpit and don't hold their flock accountable to the teachings of the church. They don't remind the people that you are truly excommunicated and prohibited from communion and other sacraments if you are not participating in the church's laws.

In fact the difference between the crowds at the local latin mass communities and the culture and the mass itself and the way the sacraments are carried out VERSUS the new way of catholicism clearly shows even the most lax catholic that the current Roman Catholic Church is clearly not even the same Church as it was up until 1965.

Go to new mass and then go to a couple sung low masses. Talk lightly with the people. Watch confirmation or a baptism in the 1962 Roman Missal way. The families are strong, the kids are polite and nice (and there are ALOT of them) and many of them know the latin and most of the boys take turns serving. They realize that the church has rules you must follow.

I must say from what I have seen no wonder so many Catholics leave or have left. You go from the priest being astute in his teachings and a culture of church and family being connected to a free-for-all mass that is just an empty shell of 1960's social revolution of "free will." So you get horrendous services with incredibly weak language, liturgical dancers, lay folk performing the abultions of the holy vessels post-communion. It's a three ring circus now. The problem is the Catholic Church made it easy to separate church from home and make only church church on Sundays. The latin mass folks still go to novenas, pray the rosary before (and sometimes during low mass privately), they still go to benediction, they still go to continuing adult education classes held by the priest. The priest oversees and teaches the first communion kids and confrimation kids. He knows everyone that goes... We really lost God in our society after the peak of free-will american individualism in the 50's through the 70's and it continues today.And that is one thing I fear about Orthodoxy.. that the customs and small traditions that make the various jursidictions uniqe. But so many coming into the church and those evangelical and protestants converts and nothing solid to have the Catholic faithful confident in their church. I fMore to come, i'm going to bed

I completely understand where you are coming from with this.

Catholicism has lost it's way, It has different rules for different countries, the Mass is no longer reverent,more like a typical Methodist / born again Christian church.

We used to fast, we used to go to confession, there was a sacred liturgy, not a musical instrument in site apart from the organ. our faith was serious.

The Church that I went to on the epiphany was was not the Catholic church that I rocognise.

I have no objection to Fr. Ambrose saying that he's scandalized by the issue he's been talking about. (Actually, if he said he wasn't scandalized, I would take that as a sign of cynicism regarding the RCC.)

But that doesn't mean that Biro can't be scandalized by something different.

Then there's me. I'm also scandalized by what Fr. Ambrose told us (although I'm even more scandalized by the experience on CAF which I described last night).

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote

Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father, you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism. My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin. You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism. He's 92 and going strong. There has to be a connexion.

Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism. Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin. You went to hell.

Minus eating meat on Fridays nothing has changed in my Irish family's thinking. although I was Greek Catholic I did have to attend Roman Catholic Churches b/c there wasn't always a Greek Catholic church available. I am well versed in what you speak of. American Catholicism has become more protestant and free in thinking while my family is still follows what you wrote. However I have never met a married RC couple my age or slightly older than I that doesn't use artificial birth control and none practice the mandated birth control called natural family planning. The most "to the tee" Roman Catholics I have met were Polish Immigrants. And by that I mean mass more than once a week, rosaries recited at home with the family, prayers with the family, fasting in lent, etc.....

A side note to make you chuckle Padre Ambrose...Christmas 2010 we went to high mass near here. The benedictine monk revamped the church. no new altar table. A glorious high altar. Wood floors with parquee in it. The schola cantorum is from Our Lady of Victory in State College (Joe Paterno was a strong member there).They sing like angels. The priest sings like an angel. He follows the 1962 with no confiteor before communion. The people that go to his 1962 masses are nice.When he said "Pax Domine sit semper vobiscum" and the choir said "et cum spirit tu tuo"I turned around and did the handshake and said "peace be with you." Why not, no one was shocked.His low masses the people say the responses. If you miss one class for first communion he makes you wait until next year to start classes over.He is "old school." He's from St. Vincent Arch-abbey near Pittsburgh. The latin mass community in Pittsburgh PA makes you feel like you stepped back to my mother's generation.Every family comes dressed to the nines. They all have multiple children. The priest is nice but he has that respect that priests used to get in the Catholic church. Both latin mass communities I speak of the homilies the priests give would shock the catholic used to the new ways. They lay the message out there and do not hold back. They don't give the "my aunt used to" story to connect it weakly to the readings. No, they talk about hell. They talk about what you must do as a Catholic to be a Catholic. A lot of Catholics I know and Catholics make up most of the Christians in my area pick and choose what they want to incorporate into their faith but still claim to be Roman Catholic.They don't realise that by not;going to confession once a year means they aren't catholic and can not take communion until a confession is made.They don't care about not being allowed to use birth controlThey believe in divorce and even if no annulment was processed they still take communion.The let girls serve on the altar and many would like to see women priestsThey don't observe the holy days and the little customs around itThey say you can talk to God and you don't have to go to the priest for advice or guidance.The priests in most parishes don't even teach the first communion classes or confirmation classes or baptism classes or have any part in RCIA.They don't think missing mass is a mortal sinThe ones that care about the one hour fast I know people who will go out to eat before mass and time it so the time they are done eating until communion is handed out is an hour.They co-habitate before marriage,sometimes for years and still think they are catholics in good standingI mean, the Catholic Church still has strict rules if you read them. But most people justify their actions when ignoring the rules. Sure that happens in the orthodox church too so I'm not casting stones.The problem is most of them were raised in CCCD (sunday school) through confirmation (7th grade here) by lay people who don't have much of a clue as to what the Catholic Church really teaches. The priests sugar-coat the rules from the pulpit and don't hold their flock accountable to the teachings of the church. They don't remind the people that you are truly excommunicated and prohibited from communion and other sacraments if you are not participating in the church's laws.

In fact the difference between the crowds at the local latin mass communities and the culture and the mass itself and the way the sacraments are carried out VERSUS the new way of catholicism clearly shows even the most lax catholic that the current Roman Catholic Church is clearly not even the same Church as it was up until 1965.

Go to new mass and then go to a couple sung low masses. Talk lightly with the people. Watch confirmation or a baptism in the 1962 Roman Missal way. The families are strong, the kids are polite and nice (and there are ALOT of them) and many of them know the latin and most of the boys take turns serving. They realize that the church has rules you must follow.

I must say from what I have seen no wonder so many Catholics leave or have left. You go from the priest being astute in his teachings and a culture of church and family being connected to a free-for-all mass that is just an empty shell of 1960's social revolution of "free will." So you get horrendous services with incredibly weak language, liturgical dancers, lay folk performing the abultions of the holy vessels post-communion. It's a three ring circus now. The problem is the Catholic Church made it easy to separate church from home and make only church church on Sundays. The latin mass folks still go to novenas, pray the rosary before (and sometimes during low mass privately), they still go to benediction, they still go to continuing adult education classes held by the priest. The priest oversees and teaches the first communion kids and confrimation kids. He knows everyone that goes... We really lost God in our society after the peak of free-will american individualism in the 50's through the 70's and it continues today.And that is one thing I fear about Orthodoxy.. that the customs and small traditions that make the various jursidictions uniqe. But so many coming into the church and those evangelical and protestants converts and nothing solid to have the Catholic faithful confident in their church. I fMore to come, i'm going to bed

That's interesting because of all the Catholic couples that I regularly associate with use NFP.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great